It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by Quizzical Originally posted by Precusor Xbox One Will Not Function Without Kinect Attached http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/21/xbox-one-will-not-function-without-kinect-attached Geez..
Maybe that's where the DRM is?
Actually, it seems strange that it would need Kinect attached even to do things that don't involve Kinect.
I think they said they want to give developers common platform. So instead of game developer writing constant checks for Kinect they will just assume it's there. Or maybe it's just false rumor and people assumed this because Microsoft is bundling Kinect on all consoles.
Originally posted by st4t1ck Originally posted by Quizzical Originally posted by Robokapp Originally posted by Seelinnikoi the tiny 500gb hard drive.
i had a 6.4gb hard drive 13 years ago.
now 500gb is 'tiny'.
I have a 120 GB SSD and no hard drive, apart from an external hard drive used for backup only.
Not the same for console though.. not to me at least. I usually have a library of games, and dont find it fun to have to install and uninstall them. so i'm hoping that the 500 gig is the the minimum package deal, like the arcade version of the 360
500 Gb is for first model, they maybe come with smaller packs in future. Keep mind you can plug external HDD to console(it has 3 USB(3?) ports and rumor is that you can install games on that HDD as well.
I understand it.
Developer's point of view:
We need to get creative and raise the console to a higher plain than just being a console.
My point of view:
I just want to play games.
All that ladida nonsense is just putting me off. Voice control, movement tracking, yadayada. I just want a controller and the next generation of games.
Originally posted by Quizzical Originally posted by Elikal Evil: Outright evil is how my friends and everyone can SEE all I did, watched, played asf. I already find it highly disturbing that in Steam all people I know can see what games I own, when I played them, what I unlocked. So I am becoming more and more transparent. No more can I cover my life behind gentle lies, like "Oh sorry I don't have time right now" - "YES I can see you play Halo again now!" Sorry, but I want to keep my doings to myself and I want to be in control who knows what. And I most certainly DON'T want a free pass to EVERYONE to know all the stuff I watched and played! (Like all my friends know all the porn I watched... >.<)
The next step is a Facebook-style update to reveal all of that information publicly so that prospective future employers can find out exactly how much you played each game out there.
I'd say that's ridiculous, except that Facebook has already gone there.
There is already Xbox 360 blogging system: http://360voice.gamerdna.com/
Seriously I would think large part of people would want system that posts Facebook and Twitter updates when they get Achievement. Whole point of achievements is boasting.
Originally posted by Mannish
When we get E3 and people see the games that this system is going to have all this hate is going to go away.
I do hope so because that's the only thing it has going that might change my mind. You see we have a Samsung UE55 ES8000 55" LED-TV, have full internet acces, what XBO is offering is most likely not even available in my country as far as it's tv feature's go's.
I can understand that the XBO might be targeted towards those without smart-tv's
Their games is really the only thing that "might" be worth it, but I doubt it since I don't feel I really missed out on their XB360 exclusive's. And most games I am really looking forward to are already multi platform incl. pc.
Originally posted by tkreep Originally posted by bestever Originally posted by Mirathel Originally posted by bestever The PS4 and the XBOX ONE are pretty much the same system when it comes to system spec. What it'll come down to is the software that runs them and Microsoft will smoke sony hands down. People think sony will beat Microsoft because of exclusives, well that's been proven wrong already since xbox is the number one sold system. Sony can't even come close to what xbox live offers and that's what kicks sony in the ass. Oh and lets not compare Sonys pile of crap move to the kinect which hands down is the best motion control I've ever used. If they fixed the rough edges that kinects launched with and it's even more accurate then Sony should just move on from motion control or try and copy Microsoft. One other thing is Sony is losing exclusives anyway because most developers are tired of losing money because they chose to stick with one system, which happen to xbox. Games made by Sony will stay with Sony and the same goes for Xbox but the third party developers are putting games on both systems.
not really...the xbox one JUST got to 500gb which for an xbox is stupid because now that xbox will have blueray and im assuming like all Xboxes you can download your game from the disk to the harddrive...games are gonna be 20 gigs + 500gb is old news. The PS3 had 500gb last year and will have 1TB in the PS4. So how are the systems similar?
The PS4 is focusing on gaming and has better system specs. The xbox one is focusing on entertainment and the failed Kinect and it will always be online. We should call it Xbox None since there wont be any in people's homes :P
So you saying the systems are not the same because of hard drive size, really? Also sony hasn't stated what size hard drive will be in the PS4. The systems are pretty much the same except the cpu in the xbox since we really don't know what its capable of and sorry the PS4 doesn't have better system specs. It has the faster GDDR5 from what I see and that not that big of deal.
PS4 is using a 8 core cpu. They are both using the same exact graphics card from amd except the PS4 version is modified by sony. Plus with the GDDR5 and larger HDD space overall the PS4 does have better specs.
While they are using the same graphics architecture (AMD's GCN, available now in Radeon HD 7000 series cards), that's not the same as using the same graphics, period. The nearest equivalents are Radeon HD 7850 for the PS4 and Radeon HD 7770 for the Xbox One.
The memory subsystems are very different, however, with the PS4 using GDDR5 and the Xbox One using DDR3+ESRAM. The difference between GDDR5 and DDR3 is enormous, and the reason why all recent $100+ gaming video cards use GDDR5, while DDR3 is relegated to budget cards. In fact, if it were GDDR5 versus just DDR3, that alone would be enough to make the Xbox One a completely stupid product, as it would be crippled by the lack of memory bandwidth. But 32 MB of ESRAM helps a lot, and while the PS4 still has a memory bandwidth advantage, it also needs more memory bandwidth due to the more powerful GPU, and neither console should be really crippled by a lack of memory bandwidth.
Originally posted by Crazy_Stick You see, the past generation of consoles was characterized by companies taking some loss or breaking even on the hardware to get the units into people’s houses so that they could make profits off of the game sales. Some rather outrageous price figures for the upcoming generation of hardware are rumored though as yet remain unconfirmed. Something changed or perhaps its just the natural progression of greed.
A rumor a while ago was that the PS4 would initially sell for $425 and that Sony would roughly break even on it. That strikes me as plausible.
Using an SoC with the graphics, processor, memory controller, and chipsets all built into a single chip helps with costs. Getting to do a die shrink a year or so later to make that single chip a lot smaller while still offering the same performance helps a lot, too, which is why both consoles will later decline from their initial price tag. Even so, the rumors are that Microsoft and Sony are buying the chips from AMD, not just licensing the architectures and then working directly with TSMC or whoever, and AMD will make a decent profit on every chip sold--far more than console CPU and GPU suppliers have gotten traditionally. But they only agreed to do that because AMD could offer far better hardware for the cost of production than any competitors.
Originally posted by AlBQuirky Did ANY gamers ask for these features? Really?
Perhaps the conversation went something like this:
Executive: We need to sell more Xbox One consoles.
Lackey: But sir, there are only so many gamers out there willing to buy gaming consoles.
Executive: Then we'll need to convince non-gamers to buy it. Add a bunch of non-gaming features that gamers won't care about.
Lackey: But sir, you can do all of the non-gaming stuff much cheaper if you don't need a CPU, GPU, memory, and hard drive suitable for gaming. If there's a market for a gaming console for non-gamers, someone else could easily build it and undercut our cost of production enormously.
Executive: Let the marketing department worry about that.
Originally posted by Siveria Also, these guys need to stop trying to make consoles into a damn pc and just stick to the games, we do not need all these damn worthless social features and shit in a videogame console, if people wanted that kind of crap they'd get a pc, or a cell phone or something. 3DS is especally bad for this, you cannot 100% alot of the games because it relys on streetpass, and when you live in an area where I do where like no one has a 3ds, you can never 100% them ever, its just bad design.
If the hardware is already being used in PCs, then the only thing stopping consoles from being able to do the same things that PCs do is software. That doesn't add to the per-unit cost of production, so why not add some software to let the consoles do stuff besides games? Even if 90% of people looking to buy a gaming console don't care about the other stuff and 10% do, it's still well worth it to make it available.
Originally posted by fat_taddler Microsoft is essentially trying to sell us a non-upgradeable PC that they maintain control of for as long as you own it.
That worked out really well for them with the Microsoft Surface (not Pro), didn't it? So they decided to do the same thing with the Xbox One. </ sarcasm>
Originally posted by BadSpock And at the end of the day, the MOST important part of my rant is that it will still play all the new next-gen games.
Except, of course, for MMORPGs and any other online games that have no need for the console's anti-piracy protections and don't want to give Microsoft a large chunk of their revenue to get access to the console.
Originally posted by BadSpock Originally posted by Gravarg Originally posted by BadSpock Originally posted by Gravarg i already have 2 one stop shops for everything I ever do...my PC and my Galaxy S4...they can both do everything the xbox one or ps4 can do, and do it better with more ease of access... I do own several computers, but I mainly only use my desktop or laptop...the rest are for the family lol. Games on the S4 look better than that COD on the Xbox One roflmao!
There is... nothing to be said about this post.
and The ps4 has really good graphics, but just like the ps3, they'll be outdated within 6 months of release...where as a PC if you want, you'll never have dated graphics
Actually with a PC, like everything else, it's outdated as soon as you buy it.
Sure you can upgrade, but upgrades aren't free either.
And I have to say, COD looked impressive graphically but real PC gamers should know that Battlefield 4 is where the real next gen shooter fans will go - and it'll run just as good if not better on a PS4/ONE for 1/2 the price to run at the same level as on PC.
And apparently you missed the biggest selling point for Microsoft and XBO -
How the PS4/XBO are going to keep up graphically with PC versions? Cloud processing. Both MS and Sony invested HEAVILY in this kind of tech for the future. Internet speeds will continue to go up and up, as games become more graphically demanding, sounds like both are planning to dump that extra processing off onto the cloud and stream it to you.
Now, I'm an IT guy and I have about 3294811097 reservations about the cloud in general, but as a MMO gamer the whole thing makes perfect sense.
The PC that I built in 2009 is still far more capable than the Xbox One will be--whether we're talking about the CPU, the GPU, memory bandwidth, storage performance, software availability, reliability, or a variety of other things.
It's far from clear what they'll get much gaming use out of cloud processing. Sony will use it to stream games and let you play a severely degraded version of PS3 games on a PS4. Microsoft isn't going to do that, even.
In order for cloud processing to make sense in a game beyond traditional stuff like MMORPG servers, you need for it to be something that isn't remotely sensitive to latency, and also for it to perform at least tens of thousands of computations for every byte of data that you pass over the Internet. Can you think of a good gaming use for that? I can't.
Even if you could, why couldn't PCs that are already available on the market today do it better?
Originally posted by BadSpock Originally posted by Illyssia Originally posted by Precusor While the PS4 system specs isn't all that great its still far better than the xbox one. So the PS4 multiplats should get some good PC ports.
The PS4 is a more powerful beast than Xbox One and it is easy to write for. Add those together PS4 is going to blow the Xbox One out of the water.
Where is this coming from?
"Xbox One is powered by an 8-core x86 AMD CPU, and a GPU that’s very similar to the Radeon 7790. There’s 8GB of DDR3 RAM (shared between the CPU and GPU), 32MB of very fast SRAM on the graphics die, and a total of 200GB of memory bandwidth."
That's actually more memory bandwidth than PS4 and the rest is almost exactly the same. Real question is Xbox OS vs PS4 OS and how easy it is to code/design for and optimize, but since XBO OS almost 100% guaranteed to be based off of a Windows kernel...
How is PS4 more powerful? I don't get it. Rumors of 40nm vs 28nm are all rumor. Neither Sony nor MS have confirmed exact details yet, but the 7790 is 28nm so logically I'd assume both Sony and MS are using 28nm died processors too.
Why? Duh it makes sense. If AMD is making all the guts for both + all of their new tech for PC line is going on 28nm, they'd have to retool their entire production globally to 28nm die, which they have, so it'd be stupid and MORE expensive to stick a line at legacy 40nm.
Price goes down for Sony/MS cause all production is standard, cheaper for AMD so cheaper for MS/Sony = cheaper consoles no more 6-700$ consoles at release - Sony learned that lesson.
The PlayStation 4 and Xbox One both use AMD's GCN architecture, and they're rumored to both clock the GPU at 800 MHz; even if the clock speed rumor is wrong, it will surely be close to 800 MHz. However, the PS4 has 18 CUs, while the Xbox One has 12. Advantage, PS4.
On memory bandwidth, the PS4 has GDDR5 memory available to everything. Whether you need to access the full 8 GB with all bits equally often, only 1 MB of physical memory accounts for 99% of memory accesses, or anything in between, the PS4 can offer its full memory bandwidth.
The Xbox One has 32 MB of ESRAM that accounts for most of the bandwidth. Any memory accesses outside of that 32 MB have to fit within something like 1/3 of the total memory bandwidth. That means you'll typically be unable to make use of anywhere near the full theoretical memory bandwidth. While the Xbox One does have enough memory bandwidth that I don't expect it to be crippled by the lack of it, the PS4 has a clear advantage here.
But if you're adding cache bandwidth into system memory bandwidth, then why not add somewhere on the order of 1 TB/s of GPU L1 cache bandwidth for the PS4, about 2/3 of that for the Xbox One, and oh look, now the PS4 wins hugely on total bandwidth. You see why blindly adding bandwidth numbers is silly?
There's no plausible reason why either the PS4 or the Xbox One would start at 40 nm. Jaguar cores and GCN graphics are already done on 28 nm, so they'll probably start there and then do a die shrink to 20 nm as soon as it saves them money, perhaps a year or so after launch.
TSMC, Global Foundries, Samsung, and so forth have tons of 28 nm production capacity--probably far more than the Xbox One or PS4 will need. The Xbox One and PS4 aren't high enough volume products or with peculiar enough needs to develop a new process node just for that product, so they'll use whatever off-the-shelf process nodes are available when it makes sense to do so.
Originally posted by Drakynn Originally posted by BadSpock Originally posted by Illyssia Originally posted by Precusor While the PS4 system specs isn't all that great its still far better than the xbox one. So the PS4 multiplats should get some good PC ports.
you forgot that the 8 gigs is also shared between 3 separate OS' and chances are that fast switching will eat a chunk of it up as well.
And why exactly are there going to be three separate operating systems running simultaneously and all needing access to system memory? That doesn't make sense.
Originally posted by BadSpock Originally posted by Wraithone Originally posted by AlBQuirky Did ANY gamers ask for these features? Really?
At this point, I doubt Mickysoft is targeting gamers. They seem to be going after the facepalm (facebook...), TV watching crowd. Someone over there has their eyes on being a "social/entertainment" hub, rather than a game console. We will have to see what happens at E3.
How hard is it for your people to understand that both consoles (PS4/XBO) are going to play next gen games - that is a given, so the ONLY differences are going to be
2. What else the console can do
Which is.. duhhhhh why they are marketing/advertising and showing off #2 and #1 in their press conferences...
And E3 is going to cover 1 and everything else (the massive numbers of games going to both consoles and PC because they are all on x86 now)
There will also be a difference in what graphical settings and/or frame rates you can run game at. A Radeon HD 7850 and 7770 can run the same games, but not at the same frame rates at the same settings.
Originally posted by Wraithone Originally posted by SaunZ Originally posted by Sulaa Originally posted by Precusor Xbox One Will Not Function Without Kinect Attached http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/21/xbox-one-will-not-function-without-kinect-attached Geez..
I have an feeling that this has something to do with patent that allow camers / kinect-like devices to check HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE SITTING IN FRONT OF CONSOLE / TV. Now group that with "DRM" and "face recognition" and "privacy" :E
BUSTED!! you have caught them!! the US government is working with Microsoft to get XBox One in every US household so that they can monitor all activity through the Kinect.
US + MS + Cloud = best, largest bad-guy database and profiling system in the world!!
USA USA USA!!!
Laugh if you wish. Given the paranoia back in Mordor on the Potomac, do you really think they would pass up the opportunities to be had from such systems? ^^ Not to mention that Mickysoft is such a Good Corporate Citizen, they wouldn't have any problems with it. Its all for the HomeLand, after all... ^^
As Yakov Smirnoff was fond of saying, In Soviet America, TV watches you!... ^^
Even if you want to be paranoid, why should the government care what games you play? They have better things to do, like monitoring your political campaign contributions. Oh wait...
Originally posted by Ikeda Back from work for a bit.. In case you guys haven't seen this one (it's hilarious)....
I really doubt that it would need to reserve 3 GB of system memory for the OS alone. Even Vista loaded up with all the bloatware that Dell or HP or Lenovo or whoever can find wasn't that bloated.
Ties in nicely with that new facial recognition database they are proposing.
Originally posted by BadSpock Originally posted by Illyssia Widely known. Below is example. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-spec-analysis-xbox-one
Supposed 50% faster GPU is significant sounding on paper, but all about how that raw power is utilized and what other bottlenecks may be present in the other hardware layers like memory or at the OS.
I actually have little doubt PS4 will be the "more powerful" console than XBO - just like how PS3 was/is more powerful than XB360.
The PS3 wasn't unambiguously more powerful than the Xbox 360. It was stronger at some things and weaker at others. The larger CPU GFLOPS numbers were offset by being much harder to properly exploit what the CPU can do.
But it's not like that with the PS4 versus Xbox One. The PS4 will both have clearly stronger hardware and also easier to fully exploit hardware because you don't have the fixed 32 MB ESRAM pool to work around.
Originally posted by Rusque Though I do want to bring up that this is very similar to when Cable companies decided to have commercials in addition to their monthly fee. Instead of people saying "No" and not putting up with it, they gave in and Cable got the double dip. The whole point of Cable TV was to get commercial free content - which is what the monthly fee was for, to support that eco-system.
The point of cable is vastly more channels and better image quality than we can get over the airwaves.
I stick to my PC(oh already did:P) when pS4 or xbox comes PC already far ahead in hardware.
Seems this xbox one sucks big time if this is all needed to own and play games lol.
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77CPU:Intell Icore7 3770kGPU:MSI 2x AMD 290X(waiting for BIG VEGA 11 HBM2)MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GBPSU:Corsair AX1200iOS:Windows 10 64bit
Originally posted by Minion552 I work for a ISP most of our calls from customers who buy consoles do it for Netflix and streaming Video. You can say Sony is going to win this war and they might but for the Adult crowd who enjoys Netflix and other videos including live tv and sports Xbox will win over any other streaming device.. MS was smart to let content from the Xbox be used on tablets and smart phones..
Well yes, the Xbox One can do Netflix. So can the PlayStation 4. How is this a reason to buy an Xbox One over a PS4?
Originally posted by Denambren Did they not consider that some people were calling the first Xbox the XBOX 1, up until now? Type "Xbox 1" or "Xbox one" in google and do an image search. Not sure how being mistaken with the first Xbox is going to be great marketing, but then I'm sure that whoever came up with the name Xbox "One" doesn't have any past experience with Consoles.
Exactly. And if they seriously messed up something like that, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in anything else about that console.
Lost my mind, now trying to lose yours...
Originally posted by Quizzical I really doubt that it would need to reserve 3 GB of system memory for the OS alone. Even Vista loaded up with all the bloatware that Dell or HP or Lenovo or whoever can find wasn't that bloated.
Originally posted by Quizzical Originally posted by Drakynn etween 3 separate OS' and chances are that fast switching will eat a chunk of it up as well.